Interiors with absence of perspective curves

[Marc]

In New Zealand and overseas travel been unavailable. I've recently opened my art books and looking at some modernist paintings of room interiors a number of them have, say, window frames perfectly parallel to the edges of the rectangular canvas. I find this effect rather jarring and clunky. These works not abstract enough to be like Mondrian in this feature, but instead being sufficiently 'real' in depiction that it seems to my eye to be plainly wrong. The visual object interface lines of objects so close will tend to curve towards two point perspective. Drawing everything in a room ruler straight becomes very obvious when they're at equal distance from the edges of the picture edges.

However it occurs to me that perhaps I'm viewing these to the wrong scale. (which indeed I are.) I'm looking in a book or computer screen. If these works approach life size illustration, perhaps they take on the nature of a mural? A painting AS a view not a painting OF a view. In something like a one to one scale they will I suppose be subject to their own perspective distortion effects. On top of this, being so large, the edges though still likely visible, will not be so dramatically apparent as a feature.

Your thoughts and personal views and experience on this?

 

[Hermes2020]

An interesting topic for discussion, Marc. My view is that there probably isn't a universal "modernist" standpoint on this. I think one can only consider the aims of each individual artist when trying to understand why some interiors are represented in this way. Could you show us some examples of the paintings you refer to?

 

[Marc]

 

[Marc]

scale size

 

[Artyczar]

I think they are supposed to be accepted as they are and are not in need of "right" or "wrong" perspective because it's about how they look to the eye and how they feel, not how they translate from 3 to 2 dimensions (as if they were hyperrealism). These "rules" don't apply.

 

[Marc]

In the small image size I don't think they do feel right. (Of course the artists here didn't intend them to be small.) I don't expect correct perspective in this style, just a nod to it. (Again in the smaller scale) There seems to be to my eye at least, a sliding scale of associated "rules". The more "real" something appears the more "correct" it has to be in other areas.

Take the Simpsons cartoon. In the seasons until about the 2010's (I'm guessing somewhat.) the depiction was completely flat. No shadows, very few close ups and everything is composed as though its on a rolling stage. "Shot in front of a live audience" style. Now it's visually composed like a crime show. Close ups, three quarter views, rotating shots, mild Dutch angles and shadows. Now closer to "point of view" than it used to be. But the Simpsons themselves look the same as from say season 6. We used to read them as being human. They looked strange, but so was the whole world, clearly they were normal characters in a comedy, just in cartoon form. Now that they're more three dimensional in a more three dimensional word they seem more alien. These aren't exactly humans any more, but people in a parallel word instead. They're slightly off, and maybe that's also why many consider them to be less funny. Though as I haven't been watching the show so I can't personally judge.

Picasso intended his pictures to be of normal people, but even he said he'd run away in terror if he saw someone on the street look like one of his paintings. The rules within his pictures aren't those we see with our eyes. On the occasion when he did stray into sculptural fleshy, but distorted forms on the canvas they also stop reading as human.

The more real, the more correct it has to be. French classical painter Ingres was accused of putting too many vertebrae (three I think) in the back of one of his nudes. No one would have cared a jot about that if he painted like a impressionist.

 

[Marc]

I think that paintings both life sized and large create their own problems and solutions. Thousands have judged this before me. Where do you put the vanishing point in something akin to a mural? There isn't going to be a single natural standing or sitting spot in many such works where viewers gaze. If it's very large or even rotates around the walls it would be natural to put many vanishing points or perhaps none at all. Things just get smaller in the distance and perspective obviously doesn't curve the parallel lines.

 

[laika]

Interesting observations. I wonder what part (if any) the camera lens might play? For instance, in the last photo, I think I can see slight effects consistent with a relatively wide-angle lens, but I have seriously screwy eyesight. The bottom of the painting and frame look slightly larger than the top to me, but that sort of thing might not account for what you're observing.

 

[E.J.H.]

"French classical painter Ingres was accused of putting too many vertebrae (three I think) in the back of one of his nudes".

This side note peaked my interest, because of my day job I know a thing or two about human anatomy, and I wondered where and how those three extra vertebrae were added (and also why). The power of the interwebs did not disappoint, there is actually a pubmed article on this.
An in depth scientific article on those three lumbar vertebrae; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079534/

 

[Marc]

"Baby's got back." and baby with less back.

 

[Marc]

Forgive the five minute photoshop.

 

[Marc]

Interesting observations. I wonder what part (if any) the camera lens might play? For instance, in the last photo, I think I can see slight effects consistent with a relatively wide-angle lens, but I have seriously screwy eyesight. The bottom of the painting and frame look slightly larger than the top to me, but that sort of thing might not account for what you're observing.

Yes I believe the photo lens was about level with the bottom of the frame so that portion appears larger. No I think the painting looks if anything better in that shot. Which is ironic, because the painting picture view is looking down at everything within the room.

 

[Marc]

I just occurs to me that Ingres Odalisque's curving tail feather fan is in both form and symbology an echo of her own back.

 

[Artyczar]

Beautiful (beautifully painted) painting.